2019 Supreme(All) 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Shashi Kant Gupta, Pankaj Bhatia, JJ.
Ashok Tahiliani - Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P. and Ors. - Respondents
Writ C. No. 49810 of 2007
Decided On : 21-08-2019

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 32, 226 – Agreement to sell was executed in favour of Dr. Nandlal Tahiliani along with delivery of possession by erstwhile lessee for consideration –Agreement to sell was in respect of Premise No. with all these hold rights and rights attached to land in building –Agreement was an unregistered agreement –In pursuance of said agreement to sell father of petitioner and, after his death, petitioner is in actual physical and legal possession in property in question –No part of land can be transferred/sold except with approval of the State Government, lessor –Approached State Government for grant of necessary permission for transfer of title in his name, decision was taken by State Government on said application and, during pendency of said application, Dr. Nandlal Tahiliani died leaving behind his son Dr. Ashok Tahiliani, present petitioner as his legal heir. –State Government took decision to convert lease hold rights pertaining to Nazul land in State of Uttar Pradesh into free hold and various Government Orders have been issued from time to time for said purpose –Petitioner being desirous of getting free hold rights in his favour applied for grant of free hold rights for total area –Petitioner states that no decision was taken by District Magistrate, however, after about four years, District Magistrate sought necessary directions from State Government vide his letter which was followed by reminder on which State Government passed order which is impugned in present writ petition. The State Government, vide order rejected request for grant of free hold rights on ground that agreement in favour of predecessor in interest of petitioner is not registered agreement to sell and in opinion of DGC (Civil) no steps can be taken for conversion of rights into free hold rights and that in agreement to sell executed in favour of predecessor in interest of petitioner there appears to be no right of renewal in favour of predecessor –Held, Government policy of conversion of lease rights into free hold casts duty on administrative authorities to pass orders within reasonable time, however, as observed in present case, authorities failed to act in reasonable time –Court issued general mandamus commanding District Magistrates and concerned Additional District Magistrates (Nazul) throughout State of Uttar Pradesh to take decision on all pending applications for grant of free hold rights pending in terms of various government orders within time bound period not exceeding six months – Writ Petition Allowed. (Paras 43 to 48).

Facts of The case:

Agreement to sell was executed in favour of Dr. Nandlal Tahiliani along with delivery of possession by erstwhile lessee for consideration – Agreement to sell was in respect of Premise No. with all these hold rights and rights attached to land in building –Agreement was an unregistered agreement –In pursuance of said agreement to sell father of petitioner and, after his death, petitioner is in actual physical and legal possession in property in question –No part of land can be transferred/sold except with approval of the State Government, lessor –Approached State Government for grant of necessary permission for transfer of title in his name, decision was taken by State Government on said application and, during pendency of said application, Dr. Nandlal Tahiliani died leaving behind his son Dr. Ashok Tahiliani, present petitioner as his legal heir. –State Government took decision to convert lease hold rights pertaining to Nazul land in State of Uttar Pradesh into free hold and various Government Orders have been issued from time to time for said purpose – Petitioner being desirous of getting free hold rights in his favour applied for grant of free hold rights for total area –Petitioner states that no decision was taken by District Magistrate, however, after about four years, District Magistrate sought necessary directions from State Government vide his letter which was followed by reminder on which State Government passed order which is impugned in present writ petition. The State Government, vide order rejected request for grant of free hold rights on ground that agreement in favour of predecessor in interest of petitioner is not registered agreement to sell and in opinion of DGC (Civil) no steps can be taken for conversion of rights into free hold rights and that in agreement to sell executed in favour of predecessor in interest of petitioner there appears to be no right of renewal in favour of predecessor.

Finding of The Court:

Government policy of conversion of lease rights into free hold casts duty on administrative authorities to pass orders within reasonable time, however, as observed in present case, authorities failed to act in reasonable time –Court issued general mandamus commanding District Magistrates and concerned Additional District Magistrates (Nazul) throughout State of Uttar Pradesh to take decision on all pending applications for grant of free hold rights pending in terms of various government orders within time bound period not exceeding six months.

Result: Appeal Allowed.